Stuart Nathan

Features editor

The latest announcements on energy policy make it harder than ever to work out where the UK’s electricity supply is going to come from by the middle of the century, and how we’re going to meet the targets for decarbonising power supply.

New dash for gas muddies UK's energy future

Forget Schroedinger’s Cat. Never mind about what happens to perceived time near a black hole. Don’t worry about the philosophical implications of quantum fluctuations in a vacuum. If you want a truly challenging thought experiment, one that will make your brain feel like it’s trying to push its way out of your ears and will make you doubt the nature of reality, try to figure out how Britain’s electricity will be produced in 2050.

Coming hard on the heels of last week’s Energy Bill, which set out new stimulus for renewable energy, and news the week before of new investment in embryonic carbon capture and storage technologies, we’re told today that in his (heroically misnamed) Autumn Statement, the Chancellor is to announce new tax breaks for shale gas exploration and plans for the building of up to 40 new gas-burning power stations. It’s very tricky to see how this squares with the UK’s binding commitment to cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050, which implies that electricity generation will have to be effectively decarbonised.

Between 27 and 37GW of new gas-powered generation means that something like half of the country’s electricity will come from gas. Well, it’s certainly not the worst option: if you’re going to burn a fossil fuel, gas is clearly the cleanest choice, in terms of both associated pollutants and carbon emissions.

It’s also undoubtedly good news for whoever in the hard-pressed construction sector gets to build these new stations. Gas technology is well developed, mature and cheap, with UK companies such as Rolls-Royce in the forefront of suppliers of equipment such as turbines.

There is an argument, put forward in The Economist today, that building new gas capacity creates some useful breathing space. It lowers emissions by replacing old plants with more efficient, newer ones, it makes the most of the availability of a cheap fuel, while giving the renewables sector the time to develop, optimise and test a new generation of more efficient, lower cost wind, marine and solar technologies. However, for those firms looking to invest in non-fossil fuel generation in the UK, what signal does a new ‘dash for gas’ send? If we’re uncertain what the generation landscape is going to look like in the next decades, what will they think? Both Horizon Nuclear Power and EDF will be represented at tomorrow’s Nuclear Industry Association Energy Future conference and they’re sure to address these questions.

There’s a possible analogy with using gas to generate electricity and buying processed convenience food. It’s cheap and it’ll certainly keep you going, but there’s a good chance it’ll wreck your health in the long run; much better for you to shell out a bit more, buy dearer fresh produce and cook from scratch. That’s certainly the message that the Department of Health puts out. But when it comes to energy, it seems that the reverse argument is being followed: go for the cheap option, despite the damage that it might do.

Moreover, is the dash for gas prejudging what shale gas exploration might find, and the ability of the industry to extract it? Reserves are not certain, and they’re not in easy places to exploit, politically speaking. There’s likely to be stiff opposition to fracking wherever it’s proposed. If we can’t extract gas from the UK’s shale, then a new generation of 40 gas power stations will leave us even more dependent on imported fuel than we are already.

It’s without doubt the most confusing conjunction of politics, economics, industry and science that the UK faces at the moment, and we at Engineer Towers are often reduced to just shaking our heads and wondering what on Earth is going on. If nothing else, new gas stations will mean that the lights stay on, but we’d love to see a coherent explanation of just how everything will fit together in the coming decades, with a set of figures that add up. Because at the moment, it makes quantum mechanics look simple, intuitive and straighforward.

Readers' comments
(27)

wadsy | 5 Dec 2012 12:56 pm

If you want to use renewables such as intermittent wind power, then it is necessary to provide back up power, such as gas. This does mean that the cost of wind power is wind turbines + gas power stations.

A discussion of the UK Government proposed limits on biomass (up to 1 GW only?) would be a useful topic for discussion as well.

This looks like the usual short-term outlook one has come to expect of governments of all shades. Nobody, it would seem, looks more than 5 years ahead. 2050 is a long way away, certainly more than one parliamentary term, so why worry about it now?

Our editor is obviously Journalist first and Engineer second. He is demanding all the answers to the future, before we have all the answers available to consider! We have not yet even proved that fracking under UK will produce usable gas quantities!Journalists are only one place below Politicians in my estimation

Fear not! The current Government is being run by a bunch of apprentices who are learning as they go. You may be aware of the continuing urgency to get Broadband to every area in the UK so that we can use our computers or hand held thingys to "see" the world and purchase food and goods. Well these items need electricity to work but it seems that the various departments controlling us have not yet realised that you must first generate the electricity! However, it is a known fact that gas can be treated to burn more completely thereby reducing emissions which may allow a safer operation for the electricity generators. So by 2050 perhaps the boffins will have worked out how to obtain clean gas use.

When we've burned all the carbon & all the furniture & still not built the nuclear stations we so obviously need for bulk power, then as the lights go out, the strikes will force a government to make a long-term decision.This will happen in my grandchildren's lifetime and they deserve better from us!

"If you want a truly challenging thought experiment, try to figure out how Britain’s electricity will be produced in 2050."

Been there, done that. Not at all challenging. Reality is just the same today as it's always been. The laws of physics don't change that much, do they.

Electricity will be produced in 2050 in much the same way as (it should be) in 2020. i.e. from Storage Integrated Renewable Generation. Dependable, simple engineering that STORES energy from wind and waves. Then you dispatch electricity only when it's in demand, not when the wind blows and the waves roll in. No-brainer. No problem. No back-up needed.

The elephant in the room is energy storage (before generator). Trouble is, Osbourne and his ilk aren't even in the room yet.

No coal, no CCS, no more than 12GW of nuclear, the rest will be a mix of renewables. The only role for gas is deep reserve, which may never be used after 2030.

Gas plant isn't so 'cheap' that investors will build it, when there's no prospect of using it after 2030. Moth-balled old plants are excellent for that role.

The world has not warmed for the last 16 years even though carbon dioxide levels have increased. This proves that carbon dioxide does not cause dangerous global warming.

None of the climate models predicted that warming would stop so the only rational conclusion is that the climate models are worthless.

The only stupid thing about government policy is continuing to squander vast amounts of money into uneconomic and ineffective onshore and offshore wind farms and even more uneconomic and hugely ineffective solar installations.

I wonder if an alternative of subsidising the replacement of gas heating boilers with micro CHP plants has been properly considered. In a way this would be carbon friendly as it might bring about a more efficient use of the gas. It could be applied to commerce hospitals, schools, flats and the like, followed by individual houses (possibly just those with a garage unless the boilers can be made near silent, e.g. fuel cell technology).

I hate to say it as an engineer in the renewables sector, but I reckon nuclear is the best stop-gap until low/zero-carbon technologies can be proved to fill the gap. The frustration is that there is already a multitude of technologies out there that are under-utilized, and the impression is that the history graduate who is making the decisions neither knows nor cares about them.

Water Wheels Driving Generators Today we all talk about wind wave and solar but no one seems to remember the large mills in the past were driven from one water wheel that drove everything in the mill.I’m thinking not just one but lots of them on all rivers where the fall allows even create the fall on some plus design them floating so as to accommodate floods.

By all accounts Britain faces shortages of generated power quite soon. Until a long term Electricity generating strategy is developed we will need home produced fuel to provide stability of supply. 'Fracked' gas is just gas. If we need it then get on with it. Gas fired Power stations would last the 30 years or so until UK power is stable and future needs are protected by whatever means. Given that Wind is more and more showing itself as 'unfit for purpose' if produced offshore and entirely anti-social for onshore sites, we had better get moving. A Nuclear powered base generation capacity seems an absolute necessity. 'Naturally' powered devices will only become useful, as stated above, if high capacity, efficient storage processes are developed.Micro CHP sounds great, but I suspect if it has a ROI of more than c.7 years it will not be viable for home use. Many and varied are the views and many and varied are the solutions, and once again I will harp on that Britain is crying out for an independent panel of qualified Engineers, seconded on a fixed term from industry or education, to be the sole arbiter of the viability of 'UK plc ' engineering projects such as: Power Generation, Rail Projects and Franchises, Road building et al. The Panel will have sole responsibility for appointing successor engineers.

54.7% of the total Carbon throughput is separated during the methanation process, at no additional cost, as high purity 150 bar supercritical CO2, and then sequestered.

Large quantities of net negative emissions (-50 to -70gCO2/kWh) 60 bar SNG is produced at an output cost of 45 to 50 p/therm, lower than to-day's open market cost of fossil Natural Gas.

Injected into the gas grid, and used in a downstream CCGT, this gives an implied cost of carbon negative electricity of £45 to £50/MWh, lower than to-day's cost of peak load electricity.

The gas grid currently provides 250 times more energy storage than the electricity grid, already exists and has been paid for. Gas transmission cost is 1/15th the capital cost per MWkm of electricity transmission.

'Green' Hydrogen (H2) produced by electrolysis of 'lopped' excess wind power can be injected into the methanation process, thus reducing the steam injection requirement, and producing more SNG (CH4) and less CO2. This increases net efficiency, and reduces emissions.

Green Hydrogen production is inherently uneconomical as less of the same energy vector (electricity) is produced as an output than as an input, ie negative net efficiency. The loss of energy is not offset by the conversion of a low cost energy resources into a high value energy vector as occurs in a conventional power station.

The negative Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) of the electrolysis plant can be offset be the increased ROCE of the SNG plant, which has had its net efficiency and ROCE increased by injecting Green Hydrogen into the methanation process.

The technology was fully developed in UK between 1955 and 1992, and subsequently in E. Germany between the late 1980's and 2007. Key elements of the technology are used in the World's largest and longest running SNG plant with CCS at Great Plains in Dakota, and are currently being built in China under the 2010 to 2015 Five Year Plan. One such plant for Datang will deilver 5% of total UK gas demand. Phase 1 went live this year.

The first key piece of engineering, the BGL slagging gasifier, originally developed in Germany during WW2, was purchased by HM Ministry of Fuel and Power in 1955.

The second key piece of engineering, the HICOM combined shift and methanation process and catalyst was developed by British Gas Midlands Research Station in the early 1980's.

The third key piece of engineering, the use of the BGL to co-gasify a wide range of mixed low grade renewable and fossil fuels, was successfully operated at commercial scale at SVZ Schwarze pumpe between the late 1980's and 2007.

The last key piece of technology, the Timmins CCS CO2 recycle loop, invented by the late Cyril Timmins, the leader of the British Gas SNG commercialisation programme, and Keith Tart, the inventor of HICOM, has recently been succesfully integrated into the design of the British Gas coal to SNG scheme by 2 more senior ex-British Gas engineers, Andy Williams of GL Noble Denton Ltd (previously Advantica plc), the inheritors of the ex-British Gas Intellectual Property and R and D records, and Chris Hodrien of Timmins CCS Ltd, formerly of British Gas Midlands Research Station and Advantica.

In short, the boffins have been busy providing the answer to providing clean low cost gas. HMG has forgotten that it sponsored the British Gas '30 Year Plan' programme from 1955 to 1992, designed to supply the whole of UK gas demand by SNG when North Sea gas ran out some time after 2000.

Shale gas has no poential (sic) to be either low carbon or cheap. Points 3) and 4) are of little consequence.

Bryan Leyland is sadly deluded. Small wonder nobody wastes their time telling him so.

Tony Day: Your suggestion doesn’t qualify as an alternative for either “clean gas use” or “Storage Integrated Renewables”. Failed on both counts.

Turn waste into biogas by all means, but if sequestration is required it’s a non-starter.

Regarding SIRG, you missed the important bit - “before generator”. That sets it apart from all other storage technology because you have NO conversion/reconversion losses. No incentives for energy storage in the EMR. Crass stupidity on all sides.

As for all these dummies that keep bleating about ‘intermittent’ wind being “useless”, how come it is being built then? There is no ROI if there is no electricity. Conventional wind is a variable power source. SIRG gives you firm, dispatchable electricity at the flick of an automated switch. Zero carbon power on demand - no fuel costs - no chemistry. What’s not to like?

David Smart - "who pays for it". The same money as is currently being used as massive Subsidies for useless wind farms. Cancel all Wind Farm subsidies. If it is cost effective it will be built as a profit generator and if not, it won't, simple!

The Technology Project Management panel would be independent, and manage HMG's money in a logical and sensible manner, clearly not what is happening today with short termist, politicised processes.

Tony Day has put forward a (presumably) well researched set of proposals. It is unlikely any Government would have the Engineering know-how to interpret the meaning behind his proposals, hence the call for an Independent panel who would fully understand all the ramifications and potential for this type of thinking and have the authority to use government money to fund this type of project if the returns or benefits make it worthwhile.

“In 2001 the European Court of Justice ruled that feed-in tariffs (ROCs for UK wind) are not subsidies because no firm receives payment from the government and the cost is passed on to ratepayers, not taxpayers; this is NOT an item in the government’s budget.”

In contrast, tax breaks etc. for fossil fuels ARE subsidies; they’re an item on that budget.

The Panel would never be given any (or certainly not enough) money by HMG. That is my point. Peter Mandelson, James Dyson and David Willetts have all looked enviously at the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft, but public funding is excluded from the agenda, so it never happens.

You seem to assume that I don’t have “a (presumably) well researched set of proposals”. Why? Is it because you have convinced yourself (for some unknown reason) that wind farms are “useless”? There is no evidence for that belief.

You are right. An independent, unbiased expert panel is absolutely essential to pick out the technical winners from the dross. I asked the DTI for just such expert assistance in 2005. The Assistant Director, Innovation Strategy said NO! - End of discussion.

I’d go before such a panel and win their vote with ease. Then what? From where do you get the investment to manufacture disruptive technology? The incumbent industry will use every crooked trick in the book to prevent that and put you out of business.

Current usage is about 68,000 tU/yr. Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.3 Mt) in the cost category around present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 80 years.

oopsy, that's at current usage, start building more, that number comes down (yes I know there are other, more dangerous ways of making your fuel last longer, while producing even more dangerous long-lived crud to poison the planet with). Nuclear: there's a technology that plans for the future... not to be anywhere near itself .... T

QUOTE ABOVE - The only stupid thing about government policy is continuing to squander vast amounts of money into uneconomic and ineffective onshore and offshore wind farms and even more uneconomic and hugely ineffective solar installations.

One day, these solar, wind and wave powered solutions WILL be needed. But until you "shake the tree" you don't know whats going to fall out of it. Better to force the technological advancement now.

The other issue is the Dash for Gas - seems some people will knock the government whatever they do? However, this does smack of something approaching an all-round strategy, which the government should be praised for. Better to have a back-up plan now, because the nuclear industry is trying to hold the government to ransom, because they think the fossil fuels can't be developed. So should the worst happen and "legal/green" power sources run out, we still have the fall-back option of gas, including the possible windfall of shale gas.

David Smart - Can't find where I said that you don't have a well researched set of proposals. If you read it you will note I was referring to Tony Day's message not yours, and the use of 'presumably' is just in case such statements are not well researched. I don't know, hence the usage.As for your seemingly boundless support for wind generation, the numbers I have seen, far from being unknown, seem to indicate a less than optimum efficiency against manufacturers quoted figures for wind installations. Perhaps with your greater knowledge you can provide some comparative costs for wind vs other means of power generation.To say 'ratepayers' rather than 'taxpayers' is not informative. It is the consumer who is hurt by higher than needed electricity costs and it is they who should be protected here.I'm afraid I don't understand your last paragraph at all. It seems self contradictory to me, but as I'm beyond retirement age it may be simple stupidity on my part.Out of curiosity, for whom do you work? Your item seems to infer you are in the Government somewhere and capable of 'going before a panel'. The basic issue again is...UK plc is not self sufficient in either fuel or power at present. The reasons for this are now history and it is the future that needs our concentration. Current practice does not seem capable of fixing the problem. We need to be self-sufficient in both fuel and generating capacity. We are an island and apart from political issues, natural disasters could disrupt supplies to us with catastrophic effects. In my own view it will take about 30 years to properly manage a solution if we start now and in the interim a mix of technologies seems to be the practical way forward. This is notwithstanding any long term solution that may be implemented. As for the Technology panel, I am glad you agree, it does seem the logical way to disassociate public projects from political interference. Maybe this should become a voting item in a future election.

Hi John, you may not have said it, but you implied that Tony's proposal looks (to you) to be better than mine. I was wondering why, and now you repeat your bias:-

"your seemingly boundless support for wind"

Actually, I am a severe critic of (conventional) wind, which is why my design proposals are transformational. I figure it is daft to stick billions of pounds worth of equipment into the sea bed, if it ONLY gives you a variable supply of electricity from wind. The logical outcome is - my design has integral energy storage, it incorporates a wave energy converter and it floats. It also discards the industry-standard HAWT in favour of a new low cost, robust VAWT; for very sound engineering reasons.

So it is more accurate to say that I am an enthusiast for energy storage and wind and wave just happen to be the most suitable candidates from the sustainable (free fuel) options. But surplus electricity from tidal can also be stored. If we suddenly got wisdom (and investment) we could have 20GW - 100GWh of stored energy available to the grid 24/7 in the early 2020s. From then on all fossil fuel generator plant could be phased out. Other than for 'deep reserve', it's all redundant.

Do you understand that capacity factor is not a measure of efficiency?

"less than optimum efficiency"

But anyway, the "numbers" you have seen are from the conventional designs that I criticise. Storage eliminates 'curtailment' AND covers for peak demand - a win/win scenario, I think you'll find. How else can that be done?

The designs I propose will likely cost no more in capital per MW delivered than the wind turbines that are due to be deployed in Round 3, but with storage (and wave) a capacity factor of 70% is attainable. Therefore you don't need so many to do a better job.

I'd expect capital savings of £40bn on total installed capacity, and £2bn every year on grid operations by the mid 2020s.

I can't for the life of me understand why nobody expresses any curiosity. I bet there's no genius engineer out there with a few billion pounds to 'burn' who can see how the designs would work. Surely everyone knows that burning stuff to make electricity is inefficient (i.e. all thermal plant) - plus the fact that you pay for the fuel, plus the fact that the fossil variety will add to global warming AND then run out.

What's not to like about 'cold' storage and self-sufficiency in electricity from here to eternity? But we have to manufacture this kit, not import it, otherwise the economy is still stuffed.

I only mentioned the Court ruling to inform you that scrapping "massive wind subsidies" would not release funds to be spent on R&D. I again agree with you in principle that money is far better spent 'up front' on R&D than 'after the event' on production subsidies. Some Germans have noticed that problem as well:-

"The current subsidies don’t encourage innovation as much as they make existing technologies profitable." That's really stupid, isn't it. The first country to solve that problem is on to a winner.http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/428145/the-great-german-energy-experiment.

The 'anti-wind' focus is mis-directed. They see 'low wind' as the issue. No, no. Tackle surplus wind output - then you get the answer.

http://www.icis.com/heren/articles/2012/12/10/9622880/rising-offshore-wind-electricity-capacity-to-crash-german-power-prices-at-night-says.html"But analysts dismissed claims that offshore wind power could provide baseload capacity". Naturally the analysts have no idea what happens when you add energy storage to the equation. Then you DO get baseload from offshore wind!!!!

My advice is - don't kid yourselves that 100% renewables is unattainable. FIVE studies conclude that it's doable, even with nothing better than existing technologies. Put new storage into the equation and it's a piece of cake (technically) and costs less. NB: All five scenarios use 50% wind power!!!!http://www.unendlich-viel-energie.de/uploads/media/Flyer_5x100_Engl_04.pdf

As you're curious, I don't work for anybody and I don't anticipate making a penny out of my intellectual property. That's just the way the cookie crumbles and I don't give a toss. I do care that the ruling elites (public and private) are taking Britain to hell in a handcart.

The only source of dependable renewable energy is tidal. But all forms of renewable energy require some form of storage including tidal. Talk about the Severn barrage gets bogged down in possible negative effects on wild life something which I do not believe is as bad as is claimed.

David,I'm not an expert on anything much, but I have an engineering background and was a senior Procurement professional for many years, hence a fair degree of cynic is inbred and I like to think I factor plain common sense very highly into any analysis I choose to have fun with. If a serious discussion ensues which prompts serious solutions to difficult questions then we all gain.

I am a proponent of tidal power. The UK has some extra-ordinarily high tides and tidal flows which I feel sure could be expoited very effectively at a lower capital cost per useable KWH than most Wind installations. The Severn Barrage, whilst having an element of 'self-storage' inbuilt is I believe a non starter for many well published reasons, e.g. silting and wild life disruption. However a series of tidal powered generators across the Severn (& many other) estuaries would harvest just about the same power without the downsides. Simplistic maybe, but i was always taught, choose the simplest answer that provides the solution. Now touted as the 'KISS' principle.

I have also seen, and approve of wind generators that have the actual generator at the base of the collector rather than the top, which to me seems to go against any common sense solution I can imagine. And propellors seem needlessly cumbersome when compared with vertical vane systems, as invented by Turkish farmers some millenia ago. Vertical vanes are also self-limiting wrt wind velocity, seem to resist damage better than propellors and are arguably cheaper and easier to make and install than the propellor type currently favoured.

So it seems, from our highly interesting and informative exchanges, that we are actually very nearly on the same side here.

My only major differing of opinion to your good self is that I believe we will always need a 'back-up' plan. If you look at all effective technological solutions, where information (in this case electricity) is moved and stored, some form of back-up is invariably required. Not to provide this carries too high a risk of allowing potentially catastrophic failure. RegardsJohn

“If a serious discussion ensues which prompts serious solutions to difficult questions then we all gain.”

Love it. That’s what I’m always looking for, but rarely find!!

Yes Stuart - project, proposal, whatever - understood.

Hi John, I agree the Severn Barrage is a non-starter. The incremental deployment of tidal stream generators is a far more sensible way forward and I would go further and say we could choose the best design option right now. i.e. buoyant, tethered fences of several turbines. Why? Because less material is used in construction and they can be easily re-sited if there are any unforeseen effects on local marine life. And obviously you want to use widely dispersed sites to get a fairly steady power fed to the grid from different tide times.

Marine designs should all adopt the same philosophy; ‘first do no harm’ - ‘reversibility’ - re-use, refurbish and recycle. The guiding principles of the circular economy.

You hit on the simple fact that makes HAWTs the wrong choice offshore. They’re top heavy and it is highly desirable, for many reasons, that we should switch to floating installations asap. Try telling that to the incumbent industry. Technip have chosen the better route of floating VAWTs (have a google) and a Chinese/US group also favour smaller, lighter VAWTs. Most fans of wind say that nothing competes with the industry standard, but a little disruptive innovation works wonders.

We have no difference of opinion on ‘back-up’. Energy storage is the raison d’etre of my design. See my post above - 10 Dec 2012 9:50 pm Even without my new design and setting aside my guesstimate of a £40bn cut in capital costs, the £2bn/year saving comes from an Imperial College study that assumes 15GW of energy storage in 2030. I argue for 20GW in 2020.

As I tried to explain, if you cut out the peaks of surplus supply and deliver that power to satisfy peak demand, it’s win/win.

The Energy Bill assumes there is no alternative to gas-fired ‘back-up’. That is insane, and all because the privatisation of electricity distribution did not foresee the need for energy storage in the system.

“it’s a bit like a carousel”http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/the-big-story/grid-connected-energy-storage-a-new-piece-in-the-uk-energy-puzzle/1014536.article

Floating installations of properly designed Wind generators seems a reasonable solution if the figures stack up. With the centre of gravity lowered by a base mounted generator a concrete flotation box anchored to the seabed could hold a number of devices.

Floating 'fences' of tidal generators also seem credible but I worry that Estuaries, where a lot of such strings of generators would be sited are also the main channels for shipping. I fear a clash of aims here with both ships and generators vying for the deep, fastest flowing channels, hence my leaning toward seabed mounted devices below keel depth. These would still be relatively portable.

i'm starting to run out of ideas on this and think I will leave it now unless I find a compelling reason to continue. Great to have this discussion with you David. You are clearly a highly qualified and motivated engineer with some radical thoughts about the future of energy. I wish you great reward for your efforts and trust that any proposals you have implemented include the neccessary insurance against worst case disaster just so I sleep easier.RegardsJohn